PDA

View Full Version : BE's PRINCIPLES of EPISTEMOLOGY 101



noot
12-09-2011, 04:21 AM
Of course most of you know who I am. And I'm happy to be here and pleased to see that there appears to be a commitment on the part of the Mutineers to conduct affairs here in a new and more open manner. New beginnings are always good. For those who may not know me I am the cartoonsyndicate, comprised of many alter egos- smokey, toon, boycotteverything and a cast numbering in the tens if not scores. I'm presenting here a set of principles that I think best comports with rational inquiry into the arcane subjects that fascinate us and bring us all together here:

A. An open mind unrestrained by skepticism is credulity
B. Skepticism with a closed mind is debunkery
C. Consider everything/ believe nothing
D. Smoke em if ya got em

If the above principles are adhered to without fail this forum may avoid the absurdity and foolishness that often infected the discourse at OMF. Of course an exception can be made in the case of Father Dan should he choose to collaborate. See ya round the boards, Noot.

nibs
12-09-2011, 04:39 AM
I don't think you and I have ever conversed before but you kinda remind me of Howard Eskin. Mur , what do you think?

Wait. We shared one and only one pm when you were reinstated at omgbrenmayhavelostitwhenhebanme.com

Curious based on your views- Tim Tebow?

Just football not religion........

noot
12-09-2011, 04:55 AM
I don't think you and I have ever conversed before but you kinda remind me of Howard Eskin. Mur , what do you think?

Wait. We shared one and only one pm when you were reinstated at omgbrenmayhavelostitwhenhebanme.com

Curious based on your views- Tim Tebow?

Just football not religion........
I'm from Denver. We love the guy. I do a Tebow after every score.

nibs
12-09-2011, 05:09 AM
Hmmm. Go broncos. ( from an ashamed eagles fan...)

As for your original post.

That other room on the net had it's share of problems. I happen to like the 4 running this show and never had a problem (at least at face value with any of them) in that room. This place can work like that place should have. Even with you "toon". Your early contributions were "excellent" for those who went back and read.... You have a clue. Frustration and banning or "shut up"!! gets us no where. Hell, I think life on the net should be more like a tribe. Everyone should have a say on who goes if a problem occurs. Not a small council within the tribe. Or ONE WIZARD behind a curtain....

This place has potential but rules need to be followed , as long as they are rules that "everyone" agrees with. Unfortunately the TOS is rarely read by anyone other than those who write it..

outa here......for now..

noot
12-09-2011, 05:10 AM
General Striker's take on witnessing...

The 'what the **** was that?' question is the operative general question. Three question follow by logical extension and form the impetus for the entire field of speculation.

1. Where do they come from?
2. How did they get here? and-
3. What do they want?

The entirety of the vast body of Ufer literature is devoted- depending on the relative ambition of the author- to answering one or more of those three questions. It's interesting that those very same queries also form the basis of all Philosophical, Metaphysical and Scientific investigation regarding the nature of existence per se.

Drake's Equation and Fermi's paradox are typical of the concomitant blending of the fields. Both beg the largest of questions and demonstrate the futility of scientific method regarding a cohesive theory- the answer to the questions they pose. And why? Because both are based in presuppositions that are themselves unproven. It's the nature of presuppositions to be assumptions derived from anecdotal data. That's actually the contradiction that lies at the heart of all Ontological hypothesis and it necessarily substitutes 'belief' for 'proof' as the foundation of Theory. Such is the nature of the dilemma of human endeavor to provide a proof of any existents beyond the brackets of Logic and is the reason that rationalists insist that logic does not apply to the 'real world' except by the (tenuous) extrapolation of analogy.

So this is the Epistemological dilemma in a nutshell: Every speculation concerning existence is ultimately founded in nothing more 'proven' than a leap of faith. Why should the study of Ufology escape conformity to this universal conundrum?

Does all of this mean that, despite the contradictions and the futility, that the questions ought not be even asked in the first place? Certainly there are those who would say precisely that- that adherence to rational skepticism precludes flights of imaginative speculation. I'm not among them for one simple reason- a simple choice, really- a choice to be curious about the mind of God.

noot
12-09-2011, 05:33 AM
In terms of rejecting any observations you're point of departure is nothing more than the Solipsist entrapment. The logical extension of such an admission of pure subjectivity is not simply doubt but the necessary rejection of all independent observation per se. All of it. I suppose that's ground zero for an ideological rational skeptic but it's also a sort of intellectual nihilism. Once one takes the initial leap of faith beyond our sensory prison every actual occasion becomes the subject of consideration. To then reject any given set of observations as false is based in categorical presupposition. And, of course, all observers have their own. Some observed occasions are objectively true and others false. Which are which is a matter of filtered judgment. A truly reasonable man brackets his own prejudicial inclinations in deference to an open mind.

Epistemology 101™ courtesy of the Cartoon Syndicate.

noot
12-09-2011, 05:41 AM
From 2/14/10

John Hicks awakens.

I have nagging questions that bother me about the whole Source A thing.......why bring it only to the people who study Ufology? Why does this type of info again and again get directly targeted to online Ufo communities? Why is this not going into newspapers? At least get George Knapp involved. Outside of visiting this forum, no one discusses, cares, knows about, or gives a rats patootie about any Secret UN meeting or Source A. It is like it was designed just for little ole us. The Pickerings have a bar in a major city with plenty of professional journalists. Some of them are probably new young blood that would love to sink their teeth into this and at least attempt to verify some of it. But it seems like that is a no no. It is just for us little forum dwellers to discuss and discuss until 2017...........wow!

John's question is critical: "Why bring it only to the people who study Ufology? Why does this type of info again and again get directly targeted to online UfO communities?" The answer, I believe, lies in IC Collections Agents methods of enabling, manipulating and studying the Ufer petri dish forums such as OM. It appears that Jed, a former OM moderator, finally has a sense of his forum members having been reduced to little more than lab rats by proactive CIA operatives who have conspired to co-opt and subvert the site for their own purposes. The purpose? Hold onto your hats- to emulate the secret seditious methods of the silent ET invasion. In a sense that would not be far from the mark it can be said that the worst fears of Gary Barker have come to fruition. The Men in Black are in actuality unexceptional, middle aged men in pin-striped suits. The only question that remains- and it the largest question of all- is at whose behest do these agents work? Are they ours or theirs? Who can we trust? Is their publication of a picture of the Saint Francis Church as a representation of a Serponian outpost designed to fool the lab rats or bewilder them? Is such obvious fraud designed for the purpose of separating out the credulous 'true believers' for further indoctrination and future pro-action on their behalf? It would appear so. And what is the glue used by these agents to maintain the integrity of their flocks? The promise of a fatuous 'Disclosure' that will never come about. That promise has also taken on religious implications and has become conflated with the inherrent yearning of all true believing CTers to be counted among the 'raptured' in the approaching denouement of history. The role of savior is filled by one Dan T. Smith in the OMer community. Note that he has even referred to himself as the final Messiah in his long and tortured discourses on eschatology- a messiah who also admits to be on the control of a CIA handler by the name of Ron Pandolfi. Smith makes no secret of this connection but rather revels in it.

John Hicks is finally sensing all this but has yet to fully understand the implications. I look for his eventual silencing by the OM moderation team just as they've seen fit to silence other members and syndicates who have attempted to expose their cultist alliance with the post-modern MIBs. General Striker

Pam
12-09-2011, 05:53 AM
That was a Hoax on a particular community.

murmur
12-09-2011, 07:34 AM
I think Toon is more of an Mike Missanelli type....but much older

Doc
12-09-2011, 01:03 PM
This is the kind of topic I have hoped to see discussed on more than one forum I have been on. It is very useful to get the terms and the methods clear to and agree upon by as many participants as possible. Many of the pointless arguments in the past were because someone didn't know the definition of, or the relationship between: Facts, Evidence and Proof. Also, many people are/were unable or unwilling to look at their own conclusions and see that they were little more than wishes or hunches. It is perfectly OK to like our hunches but not to try to push them as proof, or even sometimes as evidence.

Maybe we can do better than that here. The more of us who agree to this quality of evaluation and commit to civility, the more likely we are to succeed.

noot
12-09-2011, 03:49 PM
I'm very happy we're in agreement on this, Doc. Our tendency to forsake skeptical analysis in the interests of novelty is the very reason that UFOlogy has fallen prey to disemblers and fantasists and the manipulative 'men in black' of the IC. BE's First Principle ought to always be our point of departure. "An open mind unrestrained by skepticism is credulity." Had that been the operative principle at OMF the members might have been spared considerable misery over the course of the years. I don't lay the blame entirely at Bren's feet. His original impetus was to provide an essential service to those who would have the temerity to question the status quo of our state of knowledge concerning our special interest. And for that he ought to be commended. The downfall of OM had to do with the lack of critical thinking allowed to go unchallenged, and eventually encouraged, there. There evolved there a childish hysteria among the membership that, to my mind at least, eventually took on the trappings of a cult. All of that proved to be attractive fertile ground for CI social engineers who have been actively engaged in the UFO coverup for the last 64 years. The OM leadership team, rather than consider the pernicious intent of these deceivers allowed themselves to be manipulated into becoming their enablers- elevating the likes of Rick Doty, Kit Green, Ron Pandolfi, Hal Puttoff et alia to the station of keepers of the OMoid petri dish while at the same time relegating their detractors to ignominious silencing. If Father Smith is hearing this I'd appreciate his response. Why? Because it is my belief that he has been Bennewitzed into becoming an enabler of his own.

I sincerely hope that our mutual experience at OM will not be marginalized by a foreclosing of this discussion in the interests of some misbegotten commity. In fact I believe it would be advantageous for Bren himself to offer commentary here. At the end of the day I think we're all adult enough to sort these issue out.

Garuda
12-09-2011, 05:59 PM
We could actually come to a very interesting discussion on epistemology and methodology.

I've also been playing with the idea of approaching this field from the angle of knowledge management, where knowledge validation ties right into this same discussion.

Let me get back on this later.

noot
12-09-2011, 06:04 PM
Yes. To my mind UFOlogy is a philosophical conundrum. And perhaps that it subsumes all possible knowledge. But the details also intrigue me.